a viewpoint on perception, planning, and control
TRANSCRIPT
A Viewpoint on Perception, Planning, and
Control
Claire Tomlin
Somil Bansal, Varun Tolani, Aleksandra Faust, Jitendra Malik
How to efficiently navigate an autonomous system with a monocular RGB
camera to a goal in an a priori unknown environment?
[Bansal, Tolani, Gupta, Malik, Tomlin, CoRL 2019]
𝒑·
𝒙 = 𝒗𝒄𝒐𝒔(𝜽) + 𝒅𝒙
𝒑·
𝒚 = 𝒗𝒔𝒊𝒏(𝜽) + 𝒅𝒚
𝒗·= 𝒂
𝜽·
= 𝝎 [Bansal, Tolani, Gupta, Malik, Tomlin, CoRL 2019]
Success rate in reaching the goal (%):
Time taken to reach the goal (s):
Average acceleration along
the trajectory (𝑚/𝑠2):
Average jerk along the
trajectory (𝑚/𝑠3):
model-based E2E
Success Rate
Control Profile
model-based E2E
Some lessons learned
• Data representation is important
• Optimal control can be too optimal
• Waypoint representation
vs
vs
More lessons learned
• Building on existing NN architectures
• Image and perspective distortions during training
• RL on supervised learning
Safety Challenges
• Monitor: Is the image data in the training distribution?
• What is the uncertainty around the output of the
perception module?
• How should this uncertainty affect the planning and
control?
• More complex environments?
SURREAL
SD3DIS
HumANav
SURREAL
SD3DIS[𝑥, 𝑦, 𝜃]
Robot State
[𝑥, 𝑦, 𝜃, 𝑣, 𝜔]
Human State & Control
Human Identity- Gender
- Texture (Clothing, Skin Color,
Facial Features)
- Body Shape (Tall, Short, etc.)
HumANav
SURREAL
SD3DIS
HumANav
[𝑥, 𝑦, 𝜃]
Robot State
[𝑥, 𝑦, 𝜃, 𝑣, 𝜔]
Human State & Control
Human Identity- Gender
- Texture (Clothing, Skin Color,
Facial Features)
- Body Shape (Tall, Short, etc.)
Summary
Incorporating perception in the control loop
Supervising learning using optimal control
• a perception-planning-control pipeline
• comparison with a more traditional SLAM pipeline
• applied to a vision-based navigation task
Models of human motion
Challenges for safe control